Re: [netext] Consensus call: Adopt selective IPv4 offloading feature as specified in I-D draft-gundavelli-netext-pmipv6-sipto-option

zhou.xingyue@zte.com.cn Thu, 11 August 2011 02:35 UTC

Return-Path: <zhou.xingyue@zte.com.cn>
X-Original-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59B365E800F; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 19:35:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -97.635
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-97.635 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_DOUBLE_IP_LOOSE=0.76, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pBMDH3a8uHMp; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 19:35:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx5.zte.com.cn (mx6.zte.com.cn [95.130.199.165]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E64635E800D; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 19:35:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.30.17.100] by mx5.zte.com.cn with surfront esmtp id 131323502467742; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 10:25:31 +0800 (CST)
Received: from [10.30.3.21] by [192.168.168.16] with StormMail ESMTP id 21414.5406157678; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 10:36:10 +0800 (CST)
Received: from notes_smtp.zte.com.cn ([10.30.1.239]) by mse02.zte.com.cn with ESMTP id p7B2aFBs055628; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 10:36:15 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from zhou.xingyue@zte.com.cn)
In-Reply-To: <CA6867A8.1CF3A%basavaraj.patil@nokia.com>
To: Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-KeepSent: 57B37902:41592996-482578E9:000E327B; type=4; name=$KeepSent
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.6 March 06, 2007
Message-ID: <OF57B37902.41592996-ON482578E9.000E327B-482578E9.000E317D@zte.com.cn>
From: zhou.xingyue@zte.com.cn
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 10:36:10 +0800
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on notes_smtp/zte_ltd(Release 8.5.1FP4|July 25, 2010) at 2011-08-11 10:36:16, Serialize complete at 2011-08-11 10:36:16
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 000E317B482578E9_="
X-MAIL: mse02.zte.com.cn p7B2aFBs055628
Cc: netext@ietf.org, netext-bounces@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netext] Consensus call: Adopt selective IPv4 offloading feature as specified in I-D draft-gundavelli-netext-pmipv6-sipto-option
X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " <netext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netext>, <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netext>
List-Post: <mailto:netext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext>, <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 02:35:55 -0000

Questions:

1. Is the solution to offloading specific IPv4 flows from a MAG of
interest to the WG?

Yes   [X]
No    [ ]

2. Should we adopt as WG I-D:
draft-gundavelli-netext-pmipv6-sipto-option-01.txt which will serve as
the starting point in specifying the solution?

Yes  [X]
No   [ ]



<Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com> 
发件人:  netext-bounces@ietf.org
2011-08-11 上午 05:51

收件人
<netext@ietf.org>
抄送

主题
[netext] Consensus call: Adopt selective IPv4 offloading feature as 
specified in I-D draft-gundavelli-netext-pmipv6-sipto-option








At IETF81, the Netext WG discussed the proposal: "IP Traffic Offload
Selector Option for Proxy Mobile IPv6"
<draft-gundavelli-netext-pmipv6-sipto-option-01.txt>

Abstract

   This specification defines a mechanism and a related mobility option
   for carrying IP Offload traffic selectors between a mobile access
   gateway and a local mobility anchor in a Proxy Mobile IPv6 domain.
   Based on the received offload flow selectors from the local mobility
   anchor, a mobile access gateway can enable offload traffic rule on
   the selected IP flows.

Please note that the offloading of traffic from the MAG is limited to
IPv4 flow only using NAT44 functionality.

The general consensus of the room at the IETF81 WG meeting was that
this is a relevant problem and should be solved by the WG. As per the
minutes:
"
11 people think we should solve the problem, 4 think we should not.
"

As per process, the same question is now being asked on the Netext WG
ML before making a decision.

Questions:

1. Is the solution to offloading specific IPv4 flows from a MAG of
interest to the WG?

Yes   [ ]
No    [ ]

2. Should we adopt as WG I-D:
draft-gundavelli-netext-pmipv6-sipto-option-01.txt which will serve as
the starting point in specifying the solution?

Yes  [ ]
No   [ ]

Please respond to the above questions by August 18, 2011 on the ML.

-Chairs

The slides presented at the meeting are available in the IETF81
proceedings. Minutes have been posted to the ML and are also available
at: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/81/minutes/netext.txt


_______________________________________________
netext mailing list
netext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext